In re the Assignment of Ebert

Hamilton County Probate Court

In re the Assignment of Ebert

1 Goebel 231

DecidedJuly 18, 1889

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Goebel 231 (In re the Assignment of Ebert) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hamilton County Probate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re the Assignment of Ebert, 1 Goebel 231 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Goebel, J.

Whether Ebert was the agent, or had power to delegate such authority to Reinhardt, it is not necessary to determine. Ebert did not act upon such authority, and Reinhardt did not assume to act upon Ebert’s authority. Reinhardt not being the agent or attorney of Mrs. Ebert, had no authority to make the affidavit to the chattel mortgage. The chattel mortgage to Mrs. Ebert not having been sworn to by the mortgagee, her agent or attorney, as provided by section 4154 R. S., the same is void as against the creditors of the mortgagor. Hanes v. Tiffany, 25 O. S. 549; Blandy v. Benedict, 42 O. S. 295.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Goebel, J.

Whether Ebert was the agent, or had power to delegate such authority to Reinhardt, it is not necessary to determine. Ebert did not act upon such authority, and Reinhardt did not assume to act upon Ebert’s authority. Reinhardt not being the agent or attorney of Mrs. Ebert, had no authority to make the affidavit to the chattel mortgage. The chattel mortgage to Mrs. Ebert not having been sworn to by the mortgagee, her agent or attorney, as provided by section 4154 R. S., the same is void as against the creditors of the mortgagor. Hanes v. Tiffany, 25 O. S. 549; Blandy v. Benedict, 42 O. S. 295.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Goebel 231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-assignment-of-ebert-ohprobcthamilto-1889.